I had always thought I lived in a civilized society and that advances in science and medicine added to the quality of civilization.

I'm beginning to question that assumption. A society without ethics cannot be considered civilized regardless of the extent of its technological achievements, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that ethical standards are taking a plunge.

The New York Times recently ran a particularly troublesome story about ethics, or rather, the lack thereof. The Times reported it is not uncommon for woman to have abortions because they and/or their husbands don't like the sex of their unborn child.

Rather than bearing and raising a child of what they consider the wrong sex, some parents would rather start over again with the 50-50 chance that on the next try they will conceive a child that possesses the proper sexual credentials.

In primitive societies, children of an unwanted sex -- almost always girls -- were put to death after they were born. Today, because of prenatal sex- typing tests, they can be destroyed prior to birth under the legal protection of Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that established the right of women to choose an abortion.

In 1973, only 1 percent of the nation's geneticists approved of prenatal tests so parents could choose the sex of their child. Today, the figure is 20 percent and a lot of doctors who won't perform tests for sex selection purposes will direct clients to those who will. There are no statistics on how many abortions take place each year because a child is of an unwanted sex, but apparently they are not uncommon.

Polls have consistently shown a majority of Americans believe women should have the right to choose whether to have an abortion, but what if a pollster asked: "Do you support the right of a woman to have an abortion solely because she is unhappy with the sex of the fetus?"

If a poll question were phrased this way, support for Roe vs. Wade in all probability would diminish appreciably.

During the last two weeks, another controversy surfaced regarding abortion. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, in a letter to former President Ronald Reagan, said that not enough data is available to substantiate claims that abortions are causing widespread and lasting psychological trauma in women.

Abortion opponents are claiming there is substantial "anecdotal evidence" there is such a thing as "post-abortion syndrome," and they were hoping for statistical proof that would verify its existence. Koop said he could not make a judgment because the studies that have been conducted on both the physical and psychological effects of abortion lacked proper methodology.

Soon after Koop's letter was made public, pro-choice advocates attacked the surgeon general for his position. Solid studies have been conducted, they claimed, and the lack of data on post-abortion syndrome indicates the problem is not significant.

Significant. What does that mean when you are talking about the psychological well-being of a woman? For a statistician it means one thing, but for one of those examples of anecdotal evidence it means something entirely different.

For argument's sake, let's say that a statistically insignificant 5 percent of women who have had an abortion have lasting psychological trauma. That means 1 million American women (20 million have had abortions) are suffering from some type of post-abortion stress.

These women aren't statistics on a graph. They are real human beings with real feelings, and their suffering is far from insignificant.

Highly educated doctors, who traditionally were looked up to for their wisdom and compassion, should be concerned about this. Unfortunately, a growing number of doctors now are telling women that it is perfectly acceptable for them to have an abortion simply because they don't like the sex of the unborn child.

These doctors are no better than the pagans who left newly born girls in the woods to die. They should be told so, and shunned by civilized society.